W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sdw-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: QB4ST final issues

From: Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 18:13:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMTVsum8Tty3sbND-R563BowcNJMEYGcrQU9HNf-kN6JjTx4og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Cc: Rob Atkinson <rob@metalinkage.com.au>, SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, will do

On 16 August 2017 at 10:51, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
>
>
> I went ahead and merged the PR your reviewed. I let you implement the
> final cleanup updates, and send a call for consensus to publish the
> document as final Working Group Note once that is done.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Francois.
>
>
>
> *From**:* Rob Atkinson [mailto:rob@metalinkage.com.au]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 15, 2017 10:56 PM
> *To:* Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
> *Cc:* SDW WG Public List <public-sdw-wg@w3.org>; Francois Daoust <
> fd@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: QB4ST final issues
>
>
>
> Thanks Bill and Francois
>
>
>
> I agree with these final cleanups and happy for you to implement them.
>
>
>
> FYI Am meeting today with Geoscience Australia and will discuss future
> implementation plans and further trajectory through OGC and W3C processes.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 16 Aug 2017 12:44 AM, "Bill Roberts" <bill@swirrl.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Francois and Rob
>
>
>
> I have just merged an old PR that was still outstanding: https://github.
> com/w3c/sdw/pull/756
>
>
>
> It looked fine to me, though possible that it may need a further update?
>
>
>
> Also I looked at your re-formatting PR Francois https://github.com/
> w3c/sdw/pull/932
>
> That looks good to me and happy for you to merge it
>
>
>
> However Francois in your mail https://lists.w3.org/
> Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0080.html you raised a question
> about where we put the definition of the QB4ST ontology, and made a
> suggestion of how to solve it that Rob agreed with.
>
>
>
> So that still needs to be implemented as far as I can tell.  I am happy to
> make that change if you are both still ok with that?
>
>
>
> And the doc still lists issue 129 as open.  In https://lists.w3.org/
> Archives/Public/public-sdw-wg/2017Jun/0064.html I suggested we just get
> rid of that issue as the work it might potentially refer to did not reach a
> sufficiently advanced stage in the work of the group.  Do you both agree
> with that?
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks - nearly there!  If we can tidy these things up then we should be
> able to propose to the group that we release the final draft of this.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 July 2017 at 15:16, Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Rob, Bill,
>
> I note that there is still a pending Pull Request on the QB4ST
> specification (from me):
> https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/932
>
> Can it be merged?
>
> Also note the proposal below to add a note to make section 6 "Vocabulary
> Reference" explicit that the normative definition of the QB4ST ontology is
> to be found in the qb4st.ttl file, and that the spec only contains
> excerpts. Could you look into it?
>
> We should be able to issue a final call for consensus to publish QB4ST as
> a final Working Group Note once that is done.
>
> Thanks,
> Francois
>
>
> > From: François Daoust [mailto:fd@w3.org]
> > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2017 6:26 PM
> >
> >
> > Le 19/06/2017 à 17:39, Rob Atkinson a écrit :
> > > Thanks Francois
> > >
> > > I agree with your suggestion - ideally we would have worked examples of
> > > every defined term too - so I think we should add such a note and also
> > > note that as a "work in progress" not all terms are fully described.
> >
> > +1!
> >
> >
> > > What would be really nice is a way to pull the definitions from the
> .ttl
> > > file into a table in the spec - to avoid inevitable editing
> > > synchronisation issues - is this possible ?
> >
> > I do not know if such a conversion tool exists already (perhaps others
> > know?) but that seems doable. That said, we need to wrap-up the spec
> > within the next few days, so I guess I would stick to the note for now...
> >
> > Francois.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Rob
> > >
> > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 at 00:48 François Daoust <fd@w3.org
> > > <mailto:fd@w3.org>> wrote:
> > >
> > >     Hi Rob, Bill,
> > >
> > >     I prepared a pull request to improve Turtle code sections in the
> > >     document, see:
> > >     https://github.com/w3c/sdw/pull/932
> > >
> > >     That pull request uses a different color scheme for the bits that
> define
> > >     the ontology and the bits that link to examples, in particular.
> > >
> > >     This begs a question though: where is the QB4ST ontology
> normatively
> > >     defined? Using my W3C glasses, I would have expected to find that
> > >     definition in the spec. However, I see the "qb4st.ttl" file
> contains a
> > >     few classes whose definitions do not appear in the spec, such as
> > >     "qb4st:RefAreaMeasure", "qb4st:TemporalComponentSpecification" or
> > >     "qb4st:SpatialDimensionComponentSpecification".
> > >
> > >     I would suggest to make section 6 "Vocabulary Reference" explicit
> that
> > >     the normative definition of the QB4ST ontology is to be found in
> the
> > >     qb4st.ttl file, and that the spec only contains excerpts.
> > >
> > >     Francois.
> > >
> > >
> > >     Le 14/06/2017 à 19:23, Bill Roberts a écrit :
> > >     > Hi Rob
> > >     >
> > >     > I've edited section 6.4 of QB4ST to insert a short note about the
> > >     > intention to add an example here in future - but have left that
> > >     section
> > >     > there, so no numbering changes arise.
> > >     >
> > >     > There are still 2 open issues in the document:
> > >     >
> > >     > ISSUE 129
> > >     > Insert appropriate form of reference to SDW work if available to
> fill
> > >     > this gap
> > >     >
> > >     > If I remember correctly, that was there in case some of the work
> on
> > >     > Geosparql extensions went far enough to define the kinds of base
> > >     spatial
> > >     > concepts you had in mind.
> > >     >
> > >     > Since that hasn't yet got to the point of a formal document we
> could
> > >     > refer to, then I'm guessing this issue should just be removed,
> because
> > >     > there isn't yet a suitable reference.
> > >     >
> > >     > I'm happy to make that change, but do I understand correctly
> what you
> > >     > intended?
> > >     >
> > >     > Thanks
> > >     >
> > >     > Bill
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 17 August 2017 17:14:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:33 UTC